The Restoration and Conversion of Israel

As found in Things to Come, A Journal fo Biblical Literature, No. 247, January, 1915, Vol. XXI. No. 1., pp.8-10

It is a matter of congratulation that in dealing with the subject such as the above, there is no need, as far as the readers of Things to Come are concerned, to dwell upon the great importance of the prophetic Scriptures. In fact, no one would spend valuable time reading that excellent paper, did they not attach some importance, however little, to the prophetic parts of Holy Writ; where not only is it "A Journal of Biblical Literature" as the sub-title announces, but also of "Biblical Literature with special Reference to Prophetic Truth." So one feels on safe acceptable ground. It is, therefore, with confidence, and with humble reliance on the Divine guidance, that the writer would bring to the notice of readers the many prophecies of Scripture relating to this truly absorbing subject.

While fully knowing that, in the nature of things, the prophecies of God's future dealing with Israel have often been alluded to, and dwelt upon in Things to Come, yet the writer is not aware that these have appeared in a consecutive series of articles dealing exclusively with this subject; so he asks the readers to bear with him while he endeavors, with humble reliance on the Holy Spirit's teaching, to call attention to the numerous testimonies we have in the Word, of God's gracious intentions with regard to the chosen seed. And if these considerations were at all worthy of dedication, he would set them apart to the revered memory of that truly learned servant of God, Dr. Bollinger, the Founder of this journal; the profound student and erudite scholar in the deep things of God; to whom all readers of Things to Come owe so much light on the way of Life. In

With regard to the title of these articles, a word or two may not be deemed a miss.

In the first place, the articles will deal with the Restoration, then Conversion, not Conversion and subsequent Restoration. We call particular attention to this, because in time past--we do not think it has many adherents now--some students of the Word, taking certain passages which seem to imply that Conversion will precede Restoration, insisted that such would be the order of events.

We do not wish to anticipate, by referring to the many Scriptures which assure us of Restoration quite prior to, if not apart from, Conversion, as such will be considered in their proper place.

In the second place, we're dealing with the Restoration and Conversion of Israel, all Israel, that is the whole Twelve Tribes, not only with the two, Judah and Benjamin--nor with the ten miscalled by some "the lost tribes"--but with Judah and Israel--the Twelve Tribes.

There is no need to take up time and referring in detail to the past history of the 10 Drives Tribes, or House of Israel. We all know that these tribes were carried away captive by a Shalmaneser King of Assyria: "Then the King of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years. In the ninth year of Hoshea, the King of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah, and in Habor by the river of Gozan in the cities of the Medes" (2 Kings 17.5, 6). AND THEY HAVE NEVER RETURNED. When we say they have never returned, we mean, in any representative number.

Now, the Ten Tribes were carried away in B.C. 611. But we must remember that, from the time of severance of the house of Israel from the house of Judah in the days of Rehoboam, not only "the priests and Levites that were in all Israel resorted to him out of all their coasts" (2 Chronicles 11. 13), but "after them out of ALL the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel, came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the LORD God of their fathers" (v. 16).

This would lead to the fraternizing of the members of the Ten Tribes of Israel with the Two Tribes of Judah; and so when the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were carried captive to Babylon in the years 489 and 477 B.C., such members of the Ten Tribes of Israel as have settled among the Two Tribes of Judah would share their fate. So likewise on the return of the representatives of the Two Tribes after the Babylonian captivity, some members of the Ten Tribes returned with them, but certainly not a representative number.

And though we read in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah the terms "People of Israel" (Ezra 2.2); "Israel" (Ezra 2.59, 3.11; Neh. 7.61, 10.10, 13.3); "all Israel" (Ezra 2.70, 10.5; Neh. 7.73): though 1 Chronicles 9.2 speaks of "the Israelites" as "first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions, in their cities," that is, after the return from Babylon (see Note in loco in "Companion Bible," and particularly notice the statement "called 'Israel' although only the return of Judah and Benjamin"): though we read in verse 3 that members of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh were among those who returned: and though it is true that about sixty-eight years after Zerubbabel's arrival in Judea, a small body of Israelites reached Jerusalem under Ezra: STILL we maintain that the Ten Tribes of Israel as distinct from Judah, have never returned to their land in any national or representative number.

Perhaps a reference to secular history in support of our contention may not be thought out of place, though we are reluctant to call in the "secular arm" when dealing with the truths of God's Word. Josephus, speaking of the supplementary return under Ezra, referred to above, says: "So Ezra read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that were there; but he kept the epistle itself, and sent a copy of it to all those of his own nation that were in Media; and when these Jews had understood what piety King [Xerxes] had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased, nay, many of them took their effects with them and came to Babylon, as very desirous of going to Jerusalem; but then the entire body of that people remained in that country (Media); wherefore there are but two Tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the Ten Tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are in immense multitude, and not to be reckoned by numbers" (Antiq. B. 11, C5, sec. 2).

The fact that a representative number of the House of Israel did not return from Babylon with the representatives of the House of Judah has been insisted on at some length, because there have been, and doubtless are even now, those who would maintain that those Scriptures which prophesy of the Restoration and Conversion of the whole Twelve Tribes, found their fulfillment at the return from Babylon. But such, we trust to prove, is not the case; and that we look for the return of all the tribes of Israel to their own land in the future, and their subsequent conversion to Messiah "according to the Scriptures."

Now there are three questions which naturally suggests themselves, when we treat of God's future dealings with Is chosen people Israel. They are:

(1) Did God promise to the fathers of the Israelites a land, and also this land to their descendents?

As regards the first (1) we would merely direct attention to the promise solemnly made by the Almighty to the three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To Abraham (or Abram as he was then called) was the promise first made when he was in Canaan:

"Lift up now thine eye, and look from the place where thou art, northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward, for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever . . . Arise, walk through the land in the length of it, and in the breadth of it; for I will give it under thee" (Gen. 13. 14, 15, 17).

And this promise was solemnly repeated as regards the patriarch himself: "I am JEHOVAH that brought the out of Ur of the Chaldees, to GIVE the this land to inherit" (ch. 15. 7). And also as regards his seed by covenant: "In the same day the Lord made a COVENANT with Abram, saying,' Unto thy seed have I given this land . . .'" (v. 18).

And yet a third time Jehovah assures Abram the He will give the land, not only to him but to his seed after him: "And I will give unto the, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession: and I will be their God" (Gen. 17.8).

This threefold promise to Abraham is confirmed to Isaac: "Sojourn in this land, and I will be with me, and will bless the; were under the and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath (see chap. 15) which I swore unto Abraham thy father" (Gen. 26.3).

And also to Jacob: "I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac, the land whereon thou liest, to THEE will I give it and to THY SEED" (Genesis 28.13).

So we see the promise of the land was made for the three patriarchs, not only that they should possess it (this promise implies Resurrection for they have never yet held the land), but to their descendents also. And that not only for a time, but--as suggested by question (2)--for "an everlasting possession" (chap 17. 8), and "forever" (chap. 13.15). See also Genesis 48.4; Exodus 32.13; Joshua 14.9; Isaiah 60.21; Jeremiah 7.7; 25. 5 in this connection.

If it be urged, as it might be by some, that the dispersion of the Israelites is a sign that the Almighty has abrogated His promise of everlasting possession, we would reply that not only has He not done so, but that the dispersion is in itself one of our most potent reasons for believing that there shall be a future restoration of His people; seeing that the "gifts and calling of God are without repentance"; seeing that the former tenure of the land was conditional on obedience (Deut. 28.1,15, 64, etc., among many other passages of Scripture); and seeing that that conditional tenure of the land had absolutely nothing to do with the promise of occupancy and possession of the land made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Such promises, as we have seen, were quite unconditional, dependent on no personal merit, but were of God's absolute graciousness and bounty. And this brings us to our other point:----

(3): What specific reasons have we for looking to a future restoration for Israel?

(One) The unconditional promises of God, already dwelt upon, and the fulfillment of many prophecies of Scripture. It is an axiom of prophetical interpretation that any foretold event or events not having already received fulfillment, must point to fulfillment in the future. And this axiom we shall apply when we consider the numerous prophecies dealing with Restoration

(Two) The occupancy of the land. Israel has never yet possessed, in its entirety, the land promised to Abraham in Genesis 15.18, namely, "from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the River Euphrates."

"The river of Egypt." We find this appellation seven times in the Old Testament----in Gen. 15.18; Num. 34. 5; Joshua 15.4, 47; 1 Kings 18.65; 2 Kings 24.7; and Isaiah 27.12, "the stream of Egypt;" and in all these places the original word is nachal, a word which means a torrent or stream, a winter stream, if you like, flowing with some rapidity, but flowing only at seasons, in the rainy season, and dry at other times. Such, doubtless, was the stream at the extreme south of Palestine, dividing Egypt from Palestine, and entering the Mediterranean, or Great Sea at Rhinocorura. In fact, the Septuagint version renders "the stream of Egypt" in Isaiah 27.12, by Rhinocorura, a city of Palestine. Syria, build on the borders of the desert which separates that country from Egypt, it has been supposed to denote a stream or torrent near the city. (See Doyly & Mant, and published maps).

But this is not the river of Egypt of Gen. 15:18; the word is not nachal, a torrent, but nahar, a river, and undoubtedly refers to the Nile, which manifestly was and is the River of Egypt. See also note in Companion Bible on Numbers 34.5.

So taking the "River of Egypt," the Nile, as our South Western boundary, instead of a small stretch of land the size of Wales, or two or three English counties, we have a vast territory of some 300,000 square miles, a land fully answering the description of "a good land and large." Such is the futue possession of God's people Israel, solemnly secured to them by the oath of the Most High.

(3) A third reason for looking forward to a future ingathering of Israel is the description given us as to the location of the tribes in Ezekiel's forty-eighth chapter. Of course, we know that this chapter, as the seven previous chapters, are a description of millennial times; but they furnish a strong reason for expecting a future Restoration, for there must of necessity be a representative number of each tribe mentioned, in order to take up and occupy the portion of land assigned to them. The order of occupancy is quite different to that of the past, given for instance in Joshua (chs. 13---21), and has there has never, up to the present time, been such an allotment as the one described in Ezekiel 48, we confidently look forward to such taking place in the future.

(4) The union of the House of Judah with the House of Israel is another tangible proof for future Restoration. Since the days of Rehoboam son of Solomon, when Jeroboam the son of need that conspired, and through off allegiance to the Royal House of Judah, never have the two houses been united. That some pious members of the House of Israel, valuing the pure worship of Jehovah before earthly advantages, through in their lot the children of Judah and Benjamin, we have already seen. But this did not entail union of the two separated kingdoms, and we are assured, as we shall see in due course that this union must take place in the future.

(5) And lastly, before bringing this introductory article to a close, may not the "breadth and the length and depth and height" of the love of Jehovah for his people cause us to expect some grand and glorious things for them in the future? Well may the prophet, speaking of them exclusively exclaim: "For he that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of His eye" (Zechariah 2. 8). Well may the Apostle ask "I say then, hath God cast away His people?" And reply to his own question, in effect, "Perish the thought!" (Romans. 11.1).

But how sure and full of love are the words of Jehovah? "Behold I have graven thee upon the palms of My hands" (Isa. 49.16). And again "Thus saith Jehovah, Which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; Jehovah of Tsebahoth is His name: IF ('im, emphatic, to dispel all doubt) those ordinances depart from before Me saith Jehovah, then the seed of Israel shall cease from being a nation before Me forever. Thus saith Jehovah----IF ('im) heaven alone can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith Jehovah" (Jeremiah 31. 35-37) and again, "Thus saith Jehovah----IF ('im) My Covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: FOR I WILL CAUSE THEIR CAPTIVITY TO RETURN, and have mercy on them" (Jeremiah 33.25, 26).

And yet again: "For this is as the waters of Noah unto me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but My kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of My peace be removed, saith Jehovah that hath mercy on thee" (Isa. 54.10).

Surely a people that has had such gracious and exceeding precious promises made to them, however sad their past and present state may be, have a glorious future before then, and from being "lo-ammi, not my people," shall be, "Israel my Glory," and "Sons of the Living God."

Not true:

So Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the [Euphrates] River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life. (1 Kings 4:21)

As John Gill notes on Gen. 15:18, the “river of Egypt” was considered the border of Egypt with Canaan:

This river of Egypt, or the Nile, was the southern boundary of the land of Canaan, and from hence to the river Euphrates, the eastern boundary, was the utmost extent of it in which it was ever possessed, as it was in the times of David and Solomon, ( 2 Samuel 8:3 ) ( 1 Kings 4:21 ) .

THINGS TO COME - A Journal of Biblical Literature

Is not on line in its entirety, nor all together in one place. You may discover bits and pieces of it here and there.

I am reading all of the seven volumes I can, using Nuance software (”Dragon”), and will soon be posting what I have to a web site, as I get the articles completed.

You have alot more work to do.

I was merely commenting on the author’s error of fact. Solomon did reign over the entire land of promise.

If you're claiming that this reign was supposed to be “forever,” then I think you are the one with the problem of interpretation.

What exactly does "forever" mean in this context? Anyone? Anyone?

I was merely commenting on the author’s error of fact.

Noted, and as I read your comments I agree that was the domain of your argument. But you still have ignored two critical aspects of the Abrahamic covenant.

If you're claiming that this reign was supposed to be “forever,” then I think you are the one with the problem of interpretation.

I didn't claim that Solomons reign was suppose to be forever ... I'm claiming simply what the text in the relevant sections of Genesis, Deuteronomy, Kings, et. al., clearly says ... that the fulfilment of this covenant will involve Abraham HIMSELF, his descendents, his possession of the land, and the length of that possession, i.e. forever.

Since Abraham was long gone before Joshua started the promised land entry, there is no way that "Abrahamic and forever" possession of the land could take place. Was there at least some possession of the land mentioned? Yes ... were the boundaries that were possessed COMPLETE? That is a matter of debate, there are good men on both sides of that argument that detail persuasive arguments. However, the debate about whether Israel has possessed all the land boundaries in its history sometime is not relevant to establishing "Abrahamic and forever" possession. It doesn't matter if they at one time or another possessed all the promised land boundaries, two aspects of the covenant have not been fulfilled as of today, Mar. 7, 2011.

Since the Abrahamic covenant was not fulfilled in Israels past, it must either go unfulfilled (an unacceptable view for either of our positions), it has a general spiritual fulfillment (insert just about anything you want here), its has some specific spiritual fulfillment via the church (your view ... I think) ... or the fulfillment still remains in the future (my view).

What exactly does "forever" mean in this context? Anyone? Anyone?

Let the theological and exegetical gymnastics begin ...

Noted, and as I read your comments I agree that was the domain of your argument. But you still have ignored two critical aspects of the Abrahamic covenant.

I don’t believe so, but thanks for sharing.

that the fulfilment of this covenant will involve Abraham HIMSELF, his descendents, his possession of the land, and the length of that possession, i.e. forever.

Still waiting for you to give us your interpretation of that statement. From the Bible in the context of the last 5000 years of human history.

You see the fulfillment in terms of an ancient nation (seeds, plural). I see the fulfillment in terms of Jesus Christ, the Seed of Abraham (singular, Gal. 3:16). I like my solution better.

You see the fulfillment in terms of an ancient nation (seeds, plural). I see the fulfillment in terms of Jesus Christ, the Seed of Abraham (singular, Gal. 3:16). I like my solution better.

Well, there is your problem. Your solution requires the reader to actually believe that the Bible is about revealing Jesus Christ rather than being a far more helpful puzzle book and Day Planner for the Apocalypse Era State department employee or hedge fund manager.

Noted, and as I read your comments I agree that was the domain of your argument. But you still have ignored two critical aspects of the Abrahamic covenant.

I don’t believe so, but thanks for sharing.

I don't blame you for passing on this one. You can't exactly claim to adhere to any resemblance of a historical/grammatical hermeneutic here and at the same time come up with an alternate understanding of "everlasting possession to you and your descendants."

Still waiting for you to give us your interpretation of that statement.

The text speaks for itself ...

Gen 17:8 The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”

Seems the rest of our discussion group has thus far declined to comment on what "forever" really means.

A PS from the last post.

I finally finished Muellers book. Shifting in J. M. Kik into my list of "to read" ... I'm sure I will have questions on this but I did read the reviews on Amazon.

Seems like the reviews pretty much guarantee that after reading it I will be a die-hard postmillenial preterist when I'm through. I will be sorely disappointed if I'm not.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.